Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

Members, we now come to Part 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

I’ll just offer some brief opening remarks. This part sets out the information provisions and other matters relating to the monitor and the Ombudsman, including the empowering provisions for regulations and review clause.

Notable changes from the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 209 for this part include reducing the time for the review of the Act to three years from five years, clarifying that the monitor can share non-personal information in specific instances to support effective monitoring and reporting, and the insertion of new clause 53A, which places an explicit duty on the monitor to notify a person prescribed by regulations if the monitor becomes aware of harm or abuse. Notable changes recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee include adding a new clause that overrides the Ombudsman’s secrecy obligation in instances where abuse or harm come to the Ombudsman’s attention. I’ll leave it there. Questions?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 3 is specific to clauses 43 to 57. A question to the Minister in terms of the recent address to the committee and the reduction of the time of the five-year review and reporting on that to three years—again, arguing from a child-centric point of view, and that the whole point of this legislation proposed is to provide an oversight of the systems that are to be critiqued and reviewed as impacting on the children who are in State welfare care. So I acknowledge and I’m pleased that the advice that had been given at select committee—particularly from me around time frames and impact, critically, on children, and how their concept of time is so very different to that of an adult—has finally been taken into account. So I acknowledge the Minister for the reduction in time, but, again, three years is a significant period of time in a child’s life.

Although there’s no formal Supplementary Order Paper on the table, I invite the Minister to take that factor into account. It has been, with some of the time frames. I’m grateful for that, Minister, on behalf of the children—this legislation is framed supposedly in their interests—but, again, I invite the Minister to reflect and consider. Rather than looking at it from an adult, bureaucrat, Minister’s point of view, the whole point of this is time frames as impacts on the children. I’m aware that it takes time in terms of assessing the impact of a system over a period of years, but, again, it needs to be recalibrated in terms of perhaps even looking at an interim report for those initial reviews impacting on children and their lives.

I take the points made by the member. The issue is you do need time for a system to be able to embed to be able to report on it correctly or accurately, or to have the information that you need. However, this is a minimum review period as well. We took on board the advice that came from members that are in the Social Services and Community Committee as well as submissions with respect to the redress report that is due next year from the royal commission. We have said that it’s a minimum of three years, because if there is anything that comes out of the royal commission report that may inform potential changes that need to be made to the oversight system, then we will certainly be receptive to that happening, and the legislation will allow for that to happen. There are other reports that I spoke of that will of course be produced at a much more regular rate than this overall review of the system as a whole, and they will be very important for us being able to hold the system to account and to be able to have that transparency and accountability with respect to how it’s working.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just on the note of reviewing the bill—and I appreciate that it’s been brought down to three years—I just thought it could have gone a little bit further, to give some assurances to those who have done the most courageous thing that I can think of: put themselves out there and speak to the royal commission review about the atrocities that they went through growing up, either in care or how they were let down.

I’ve got Supplementary Order Paper 189, that looks to amend clause 57 and make it so that the review must commence no later than six months after the delivery to the Minister of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, and it must be completed no later than 12 months after its commencement. The reason for this is it would just give assurances that these people haven’t spent the last few years trying to advocate for change and find that it was just pointless because the Government has already pre-empted what they feel needed to be changed—and there’s a fear out there that the royal inquiry into abuse in care may just not be worth the paper it’s written on if it’s not acknowledged. So to acknowledge those who have been courageous enough to come out and speak to those atrocities and deal with that trauma again, I just want the assurance that we’re going to actually review it and take into account what this inquiry has said.

Again, it’s just to restate that it’s a minimum of three years from the commencement date of the bill, and so therefore it can be done earlier if there is something significant that could impact or influence the legislation. I’ll just remind the member that there may be things that come out of the royal commission’s redress report that are not specific to informing any changes to the legislation but may actually have an impact on the operations that exist within the system. I mean, I think that’s important to note, because then, actually, the system will have the opportunity to take on board those things that inform operational changes, and then, potentially moving forward, when we get to the review period, there’ll be an opportunity to check that those things were incorporated into the practice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It might be the first time in my life that I’ve spoken in support of an ACT Party Supplementary Order Paper, but I do want to on this occasion, and part of it is around—I understand what the Minister is saying on the three years. Our preference, along with all of the submitters and a huge number of other advocates, is that this legislation would have been delayed until the royal commission reported, because, in our view, that is the best way to pay respect to the people who are going through that process of historical as well as, in some instances, current experiences of abuse. While I hear the Minister saying that three years is a minimum and so it might happen earlier, it will be up to the Government of the time, and if we’re looking at restoring trust, then, actually, that degree of flexibility is not a clear commitment.

Karen Chhour’s amendment directly links it to the royal commission and tells them that this House is united in wanting to ensure that, actually, this system is addressing their experiences. I think that matters because it is a huge undertaking. It took years to get commitment for this royal commission, and I know there’s concern coming through from the Royal Commission Forum and others that the Government isn’t as engaged as it should be in following and knowing what’s happening in the commission. It is a very real concern that there’s a disconnect, and this would be one of our ways of things that we could do to help restore a sense of connection to that work and to honour those people.

I do want to acknowledge the Government, though, for the change around notifying abuse when it’s found. That is something that did come through really strongly in select committee and it is important, from my perspective, because it did seem as if that could have been deeply problematic for people to go in in their monitoring duties and discover abuse, but there not being any obligation for them to report that. So we are pleased with that change.

I will also just briefly in this contribution—and there isn’t, I think, much more. My further comments will be reserved for Part 5. But at this point it’s around our amendment to clause 57 around the review of the Act, and we’re looking to add a new provision to that to ensure that the monitor is upholding tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. Again, it links back to the point I made in the last part about the legislation reinforcing the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and ensuring that our whole system is working towards recognising that right, which is so blatantly and consistently trampled on. So that was my contribution and question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, Minister, speaking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209, your SOP, which is addressing clause 57 and the amendment there and the reduction of time, and speaking to Ms Chhour’s SOP in relation to that, I just refer the Minister to what the core principles of this Act are as detailed specifically in clause 5. Clause 5, “Principles”, states “A person who performs a function or duty or exercises a power under the Act must have regard to—”, and one of your proposed amendments was the inclusion of “the best interests of children and young people” and “the perspectives of children and young people.”

So, Minister, with the amendment, you propose a reduction of the time from five years to three years. At a minimum you’ve emphasised again that there is a contradiction in terms of perspective of children and young people in the concept of time frames and the impact that the review of this Act and also the review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act and the monitor under this Act will have on the children. So, Minister, the reduction of time from five years to three years in my submission to this committee on behalf of children, having worked with them for many years and that concept of time, although it may be amenable to the State, the Government sector, the system, in terms of review—and taking heed of Ms Chhour’s proposed amendment to clause 57, a commencement no later than six months after the delivery of the royal commission of inquiry—is very, very important.

The whole point of this proposed legislation is about an oversight, not overlooking the impact of this on our children who are in State welfare care but having the insight—not the oversight, the insight—to their perspective of time frames and the impact that a review at such a significant expended period—a minimum, as you say, of three years—is a considerable element, in part, of a child’s life.

The whole point of this bill, as the Government and you, Minister, have declared is about what is going to provide for the best interests of children and young people—and you’ve acknowledged that by way of an amendment to the core principles in clause 5—and the perspectives of children and young people. The time frame is a considerable insight into their lives. Don’t dispense with and dismiss that with an oversight.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to talk about collecting information from a child or a young person. It’s clause 46, and it just talks about complying with the requirements of the monitor’s code of ethics in respect to engaging with children and young people.

All through this bill, it says it’s all about engaging with children and young people in a respectful and meaningful way, but what does this actually mean? And if our children don’t trust the monitor that’s trying to collect this information and children just will not give their consent and caregivers will not give their consent, how are we going to collect relevant information, and how would the monitor go about requiring that consent?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m also wanting to look at the way the monitor will share or disclose this information, and what obligation the monitor has in sharing the information with the children’s commission. I’m just wondering, is it all their reports and information—and I know we’ve discussed this—or is it what they feel that the children’s commission should know? And if they are coming across information that should be advocated about but under the clause they’re having to uphold the good name of Oranga Tamariki, is there a conflict there? If they hand this information over, it may not be upholding the good name of Oranga Tamariki. That was just something that submitters did talk about. It may not be an issue, but I just wanted it clarified.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.

Karen Chhour’s amendment to clause 57 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Jan Logie’s amendments to clause 57 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 3 as amended stand part.

Members, we now come to Part 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Part 4 Amendments to other legislation